The proposal for a new building to replace the burned out shell of the former Coles Tavern includes a couple of variance requests. The applicant is asking to reduce the setback requirements and allow a little more height. Compare this image with what currently exists (click here).
Bear in mind the town increased the allowable height by 10 feet to allow for taller buildings in this business core, in part to do just what is occurring now. The third story of building space (already allowed under current code) is intended to encourage new development. This height variance requests an additional 4 feet, 8 inches so that the interior ceiling heights can be more comfortable and appealing. The lead architect for the project David Boe explains the reasoning:
The easiest way to describe this issue is that the total building height is limited to 35 feet maximum including all of the screening requirements of the roof-top mechanical units (which typically extends about 5 feet above the roof deck of the structure). The Town’s Comprehensive Plan desires to have three story buildings in this part of
18 comments:
Transformed into what? A bigger box? That's what this new building looks like: a box about a third bigger and higher than the attached buildings next to it.
I'm confident that a good architect can turn out a more creative looking building that stays within our building height ordinance and I'm equally confident that this message will be ignored.
Wouldn't it be just as easy to rise the limit to 40' and allow no more than 3 levels. Seems like the planning commission kind of missed the mark or intention of the new zoning.Although I am greatful for the changes the town did make. Having the right look for our town is what really matters. I do prefer the "new" Coles to the old one.
Please post this.
Just to clarify, the planning commission recommended a height limit of 45 feet and three stories in this area, but when the town council made their decision, they reduced the height limit to 35 feet. It is a different council and new planning commission now, perhaps they will see things differently than their predecessors.
Remember the grant they misused and did not return the money. Went through all the hoops and the final vote was amended so as to be almost worthless reducing the height and I believe taking out two whole blocks. One council person still on the council.
#3 anonymous could you please be more clear. I do not have the background you seem to have.
i think its really beautiful. a building like this would have a huge impact on our business district.
Last Anonymous, that huge impact that you think is likely, may be due to the lack of any parking in this plan, namely the crowding of our neighborhood streets with vehicles looking for places to park.
If you've seen the dozens of construction workers' cars parked all over Shirley, 52nd and 53rd Streets, you'll get the picture.
To sum up: If you like big boxes, then I can understand why the thought might occur that this design is beautiful. As for me, I agree with Anonymous number 1 and I'll go further. Anyone could have designed this building; it is very predictable and pretty boring to me.
By the way, why shouldn't architects and builders take the trouble to design a structure that is in accord with our building ordinances? Is that so much to ask?
I like all the windows in this proposal, even if its a "big box". There isn't much flexibility in the "box" the town gives them to develop this space. The council should have had more foresight into the limits they were creating when they went against the 45 feet height limit recommended by the planning commission. Their request for reasonable interior ceiling heights should be granted.
Yes to the last commenter, it is too much to ask someone willing to invest thousands of their own dollars to meet a building code that does not make any sense (3 stories @ 35 feet building height)
Big boxes, no parking, ignore the height ordinance; instead just add windows, and call it good.
This is what's called thinking inside the (big) box.
What's so hard about designing a building that's 3 stories tall and 35 feet tall? It's done a lot - look at Proctor and Old Town. This is hardly a challenge.
there are no "new" buildings in proctor or old town, that are similar in use to this one.
35ft AND 3 stories (which is what is promoted in the COM-P)is NOT an easy recipe to build to these days.
there are many things that need to be considered, and the "old" town council screwed this one up.
when you ask yourselves, "why havnt the developers made the move to pearl st?" the high restriction is a big reason.
Looks like the town should of called it at 40 ft and we wouldn't be bickering again. Funny how that location operated as a business since before most of you were born. Customers found a place to park with less parking spaces then there are today. hmmm
So one of the commenters above is saying that there are no new buildings in Proctor or Old Town? What about the new, huge Safeway in Proctor that comes in under 35feet?
How about the remodel of the public library on 26th Street? The architects and designers could have asked to go higher but they managed to get a productive use structure within the framework of the existing shell.
It just takes a some creativity to play by the rules, folks.
So when was the last time you saw a two or three story Safeway? Maybe the architect could put a round peg where the old box is at Coles....whould that be creative enough? Come on people let's move forward. This design is just what the planning commision invisioned. It definatly can begin the revival of Ruston.
I heard that the attached building next to it just sold too. Do you think the new owner will leave that building to deteriate more? Those that want a walkable mainstreet like "Proctor District" bless your lucky stars because I think it is on its way!
A comment came in tonight wanting commenters to use their names rather than hiding behind anonymous comments.
Sorry for the deleted comment. I pushed the wrong button....
Post a Comment